validation audit...over the past few years, bcrpa has been engaged in a recreation facilities...

BC Recreation & Parks Association Community Recreation Facilities

Assessment Study

July 2008

Validation Audit

BCRPA Validation Audit Community Recreation Facilities Assessment Study i

About the BCRPAThe British Columbia Recreation and Parks Association is a not for profit organization dedicated to building and sustaining active healthy lifestyles and communities in BC. Established in 1958, the Association is a central resource agency for members and stakeholders of the parks, recreation, physical activity and culture industry, providing leadership, training and support to help meet national, provincial and local priorities. Through a diverse network of partners and extensive programs and services, BCRPA actively advocates accessibility and inclusiveness to recreation and physical activity and strives to help integrate sport and recreation opportunities.

Our VisionThe recreation, parks and culture sector is an essential partner for building healthy individuals and communities, as well as fostering economic and environmental sustainability.

Our MissionBCRPA is committed to leading the parks, recreation and culture sector in building and sustaining healthy active communities, including fostering economic and environmental sustainability. We inspire and support community leaders and practitioners through advocacy, communication, education, resources and other services.

BCRPA Validation Audit Community Recreation Facilities Assessment Study ii

Acknowledgements

BCRPA would like to thank the members of the Steering Committee who volunteered their time and expertise to the development of this document. The Steering Committee members were:

• Suzanne Allard Strutt, CEO, British Columbia Recreation & Parks Association

• Darryl Condon, Principal, Hughes Condon Marler: Architects

• Joyce Fordyce, Sports Centre Manager, Coquitlam Parks & Recreation

• Gary Houg, Manager, Maintenance & Engineering Services, NVRC

• Don Hunter, Principal, Don Hunter Consulting

• Sharon Meredith, Operations Manager, British Columbia Recreation & Parks Association

• Tom Osborne, General Manager of Recreation and Parks, Regional District of Nanaimo

• Kevin Pike, Director of Parks & Community Services, District of West Vancouver

• Mark Vulliamy, Manager, Research and Planning, City of Vancouver

• Sharon White, Policy Analyst/Sport Consultant, Ministry of Healthy Living and Sport

The BCRPA would like to also acknowledge Hughes Condon Marler: Architects for their services and expertise in the creation of this Validation Study of the Community Recreation Facilities Assessment Study.

The compilation of this data required the cooperation of a large number of participants across the municipal recreation sector in British Columbia. BCRPA is thankful for the time and efforts provided by all participants.

Copyright 2009 by BC Recreation & Parks Association. All rights reserved. This material may not be duplicated without permission from the Copyright holder.

©

Contents

Section 1: Executive Summary

Section 2: Definitions

Section 3: Methodology

Appendices

BCRPA Validation Audit Community Recreation Facilities Assessment Study iii

Section 1Executive Summary 1

1.1 Background & Context .................................1

1.2 Terminology & Definitions ............................1

1.3 Purpose of the Validation Study ....................1

1.4 Scope of the Validation Work ........................2

1.5 Organization of the Validation Report .............3

1.6 Primary “Forces of Retirement” .....................3

1.7 Summary of Validation Findings ....................4

1.8 Summary of Validation Analysis ....................5

1.9 Community Centres .....................................7

1.10 Ice Arenas ................................................9

1.11 Indoor Pools ............................................ 11

1.12 Outdoor Swimming Pools ......................... 12

1.13 Seniors Centres ....................................... 13

1.14 Youth Centres ......................................... 15

1.15 Community Halls ..................................... 17

1.16 Curling Facilities ...................................... 18

1.17 Extrapolation Recommendations ................ 18

1.18 Interim Re-Investment Findings ................. 19

Section 2Definitions� 20

Section 3Methodology� 25

3.1 “Condition” & “Obsolescence” .................... 25

3.2 Determine Sample for Assessment............... 27

3.3 Determine Scope of Assessments ................ 27

Contents

BCRPA Validation Audit Community Recreation Facilities Assessment Study iv

3.4 Review Tombstone Data ........................... 29

3.5 Establish Structure of Validation Data .......... 29

3.6 Determine Space-Use Classifications ............ 30

3.7 Determine Age of Each Facility .................... 31

3.8 Determine Size of Each Facility ................... 32

3.9 Review Theoretical Data ............................. 32

3.10 Collect Site Validation Data....................... 33

3.11 Assign System Condition Rankings ............ 34

3.12 Determine Reinvestment Categories ........... 34

3.13 Calculate Physical Condition Indices ........... 35

3.14 Determine appropriate Role of Functional Obsolescence in Reinvestment Calculations ........ 37

3.15 Quantify Functional Obsolescence ............. 38

3.16 Normalize the Empirical Data ..................... 41

3.17 Reconcile Theoretical & Empirical Data ....... 41

3.18 Generate Reports ..................................... 42

3.19 Future Analysis Opportunities .................... 43

Appendices 44

Contents




Appendices

BCRPA Validation Audit Community Recreation Facilities Assessment Study 1

Executive Summary

In early-April 2008 the BC Recreation & Parks Association (“BCRPA”) commissioned an assessment of a sample of recreation facilities in the Lower Mainland Region (the “Validation Sample”). The primary purpose of the assessment was to validate some theoretical assumptions about the condition of the recreation facilities (the “Validation Study”), to continue to build upon the information gathered, and further the objectives of the existing Recreation Facilities Assessment Study (the “Master Study”).

1.1 Background & ContextOver the past few years, BCRPA has been engaged in a Recreation Facilities Assessment Study (hereinafter referred to as the “Master Study”), which has involved four phases of data collection and data analysis.

Phase�I,�2003 Preparation of an inventory of ice arenas, curling facilities, indoor & outdoor pools.

Phase�II,�2005�� Preparation of an inventory of parks, open spaces, and playing fields.

Phase�III,�2005�� Preparation of an inventory of community centres, community halls, youth centres and seniors’ centres.

Phase�IV,�2008 Analysis of the findings of the previous three phases of the Master Study.

BCRPA is currently finalizing Phase IV of the Master Study to incorporate some of the on-site condition assessments at a sample of the recreation inventory.

1.2�Terminology�&�DefinitionsThis report makes use of a variety of terms when conveying concepts and relationships. A summary of definitions is therefore included in Part 2 of this report.

1.3�Purpose�of�the�Validation�StudyThe Validation Study has been identified as having the following four primary objectives.

Section 1


• To gather additional technical information for the purpose of validating existing lifecycle assumptions about the general condition of the recreation facility infrastructure in British Columbia.

• To derive an order of magnitude estimate of provincial recreation infrastructure re-investment and re-capitalization costs, which will be incorporated into an advocacy platform regarding provincial funding of the infrastructure deficit.

• To derive a Condition Index to enable comparative analysis of each building in a statistically representative sample of recreation facilities.

• To extrapolate the findings of the sample of buildings across the provincial portfolio in order to derive a defensible estimate of the infrastructure deficit.

These objectives are pursued through the application of a rigorous methodology, which is outlined in Part 3 of this report.

1.4�Scope�of�the�Validation�WorkThe Validation Study has been limited to the following sub-set of the larger inventory of 855 recreation facilities in British Columbia.

Recreation Region Lower Mainland, BC(The facilities visited represent a portion of the Region between Hope and Squamish.)

Recreation Facilities 16Recreation Buildings 34 (3.97% of the population)Types�of�in-scope�buildings

16 community centre buildings 5 indoor pool buildings 1 community hall building 1 curling facility building 3 ice arena buildings 2 senior centre buildings 3 youth centre buildings 0 outdoor swimming pools

Systems within each Building

Structural, enclosure, electrical, mechanical, and finishes

Data collected on each system

System summaries System concerns System recommendations System condition ranking

Organization�of�data “Catch-up” costs – deferred maintenance “Keep-up” costs – projected renewals “Get-ahead” costs – functional obsolescence

Indices FCI = ‘catch-up’ costs (physical deterioration) EFCI = ‘keep-up’ costs (physical deterioration) FNI = ‘get-ahead’ costs (functional obsolescence)

A detailed explanation of the methodology, including definitions of the different types of indices (FCI, EFCI and FNI), are included in Part 3 of this report.

Section 1


1.5�Organization�of�the�Validation�ReportThe Validation Study is organized into the following four sections:

A. Executive Summary This includes an outline of the methods and assumptions in the Validation Study and spreadsheets summarizing the data.

B. Data Distributions The section includes several reports on that compare the condition of the different buildings in the validation sample.

C. Facility Reports This section contains the reports for each individual Facility.

D. Appendices This section contains sample photographs of observation deficiencies and other general reference information.

1.6�Primary�“Forces�of�Retirement”The Validation Study is founded on the principle that recreation facilities are subject to the impact of the following two primary “forces of retirement”, which must be understood and analyzed using different means, methods and techniques.

• Physical Deterioration. The degradation of the buildings and their components as a result of the action of the elements, wear & tear, and other environmental factors. The Facility Condition Index (FCI) and the Extended Facility Condition Index (EFCI) quantify the physical condition of the buildings. Both these indices are grounded in empirical data and are subject to traditional engineering assessment methodologies.

• Functional Obsolescence. The loss in qualitative and quantitative utility of the buildings and their interior spaces as result of factors such as recreation programming changes, new sports regulations and community growth. The extent of functional obsolescence is quantified by the Facility Needs Index (FNI) and is based primarily on theoretical data. The methodology to calculate functional obsolescence and functional multipliers has been developed as a result of professional collaboration between consultants to the project.

For additional clarity, a building may be deemed to be in relatively good physical condition but is functionally obsolete since it does not meet the requirements of the space users. Similarly, a building may satisfy the functional requirements of the day but the physical components could be significantly deteriorated.

Section 1


1.7�Summary�of�Validation�FindingsBased on the sample of sixteen recreation facilities, which encompassed 34 buildings, the Validation Study has arrived at the following preliminary findings:

• On Physical Condition: The vast majority of the in-scope facilities exhibit physical condition characteristics that are consistent with their age. Aside from a few statistical outliers (ie., data anomalies), the individual buildings in the Validation Sample exhibit the characteristics of the theoretical facility life cycle stages that are contemplated in the Master Study. The few buildings that do not conform to the theoretical model have been subject to upgrades and renovations that have extended the physical life of those facilities. Some of the younger (Stage 2) buildings in the Validation Sample suffered from some premature failure of the building enclosure and the projected rehabilitation costs are skewing the results.

• On Functional Obsolescence: The in-scope facilities in the Validation Sample suffer from varying degrees of obsolescence, which has some statistically meaningful correlation with their position in each of the five life-cycle stages contemplated in the Master Study.

The following table summarizes the “theoretical” condition index for each life stage (as reflected in the Master Study) relative to the “empirical” findings based on the sample of sixteen recreation facilities (as recorded in the Validation Study).

Life�Stage

Age Group

“Theoretical”�condition�of�

recreation�facility�population�(855�

buildings)

“Empirical”�condition�of�recreation

facility��sample�(34�buildings)

Variance

Master StudyPhase IV

Validation Study

Stage 1< 1

year old0% 0% N/A

Stage 22-14 years

5% (incl. obsolescence)

30% (excl. obsolescence)

High

Stage 315-24 years



Moderate

Stage 425-34 years


30% (excl. obsolescence

Low

Stage 5> 35 years

70% (incl. Obsolescence)


High

Section 1


While the data for buildings in Stages 3 and 4 is generally consistent between the theoretical and empirical models, the empirical data for the Stage 2 and Stage 5 sample buildings is anomalous. This variance is accounted for by the fact that some of the Stage 2 buildings were identified as suffering from failure of the building enclosure system, which has skewed the condition rating for this group. A significant portion of the Stage 5 buildings have undergone renovations or renewals which has extend their useful life. Furthermore, the variance in the Stage 5 buildings is high due to the expected increase in functional obsolescence that may result from further refinement of the obsolescence multipliers.

The data to substantiate the findings of the Validation Study is presented in a series of reports, including financial tables, charts and matrices. These reports are attached in subsequent sections.

1.8�Summary�of�Validation�AnalysisThe data for each of the buildings in the sample has been organized in a manner so that each building can be classified into one of four quadrants in an “age-condition matrix”.

The figure below provides a conceptual illustration of the four quadrant matrix, which is a tool to enable a cross reference between the physical condition of the facilities (shown on the horizontal axis) and the age of the facilities (shown on the vertical axis).

Section 1


The next figure illustrates how the relative condition of each of the facilities is represented along the horizontal axis. Buildings that exhibit a low Facility Condition Index (FCI) are considered to be in relatively good condition and these occupy the left side of the matrix.

The figure below illustrates how each of the five life cycle stages, contemplated in the Master Study, is represented on the vertical (y-axis) of the condition-age matrix.

Further information on the data used to develop the matrices is included with the methodology in Part 3 of this report.

Section 1


1.9 Community CentresThe distribution of the age and condition attributes of the 16 in-scope community centre buildings (shown in “yellow”) is summarized in the following scatter plot.

Analysis of the sample data associated with the community centres indicates the following general trends:

• Physical Deterioration (FCI/EFCI): Generally, the physical condition of the community centres was consistent with their age. Some rehabilitation and renovation work completed over the years at some the recreation facilities has resulted in a range of FCI calculations, with the average FCI being 13.4%. It should also be noted that the validation sample included community centre buildings of an average age of 36 years (ie., Stage 5), which is higher than the average age of the statistical population of community centres (ie., Stage 4). As a result, the interim results of the Validation Sample may be skewed and should be normalized when making extrapolations the statistical population of community centres.

• Functional Obsolescence (FNI): The community centres are deemed to be moderately susceptible to obsolescence factors resulting from changes in user requirements. Many of the community centres exhibited signs of space use limitations, evident by factors such as concrete floors in gymnasiums that are “hard on the knees”, dormant rooms, overcrowding of rooms, exercise bicycles in squash courts. Based on the preliminary data, the average Facility Needs Index (FNI) for the community centres in the Validation Sample had been estimated at approximately 44.7%.

Section 1


The table below summarizes some of the data associated with community centres in the Validation Sample.

Validation SampleBuildings in Portfolio 177Buildings in Sample 16 (9.0%)Age and Size AttributesAvg. Age in Portfolio 1978 (30 yrs) – Stage 4Avg. Age in Sample 1972 (36 yrs) – Stage 5Avg. Size in Sample 31,000 SFPhysical�Condition�Attributes�of�SampleAvg. Reproduction Cost $ 5,9 MillionAvg. FCI (“catch-up”) 13.4% of reproduction costAvg. EFCI (“keep up”) 22.0% of reproduction costObsolescence�Attributes�of�Sample“S” Curve points 0% obsolescence at 0 years

50% obsolescence at 30 years (point of inflection)98% obsolescence at 60 years

Delta/Amplitude 100% of reproduction costAvg. FNI (“get ahead”) 44.7 % of reproduction cost

Additional data tables to demonstrate the findings regarding the sample of community centres are included in subsequent sections of the report.

Section 1


1.10�Ice�ArenasThe distribution of the condition and age attributes of the three in-scope ice arenas (shown in “red”) is reflected in the following summary matrix. The buildings are identified as #2, #7, and #11.

Analysis of the preliminary sample data associated with the ice arenas indicates the following general trends and comparison to the Master Study:

• Physical Deterioration (FCI/EFCI): The ice arenas in the Validation Sample exhibit a clear and consistent pattern with respect to the correlation between their age and their condition. The three ice arenas in the sample were all Stage 4 facilities (as defined by the Master Study) and found to be in relatively poor condition as demonstrated by an average FCI of 38.1%.

• Functional Obsolescence (FNI): Based on the preliminary obsolescence multipliers, the ice arenas are deemed to be moderately susceptible to obsolescence factors, which is reflected in an average Facility Needs Index of 25.8% in the Validation Sample.

Section 1


The following table summarizes some of the data associated with ice arenas in the Validation Sample.

Validation SampleBuildings in Portfolio 162 Ice ArenasBuildings in Sample 3 (1.9%)Age and Size AttributesAvg. Age in Portfolio 1974 (34 yrs) – Stage 4Avg. Age in Sample 1975 (33 yrs) – Stage 4Avg. Size in Sample 30,500 SFPhysical�Condition�Attributes�of�SampleAvg. Reproduction Cost $ 3,9 MillionAvg. FCI (“catch-up”) 38.1 % of reproduction costAvg. EFCI (“keep up”) 87.3 % of reproduction costObsolescence�Attributes�of�Sample“S” Curve points 0% obsolescence at 0 years


Delta/Amplitude 100% of reproduction costAvg. FNI (“get ahead”) 25.8 % of reproduction cost

Detailed data tables regarding the Validation Sample of ice arenas are included in subsequent section of the report.

Section 1


1.11 Indoor PoolsThe figure below illustrates the age and condition distribution of the five indoor swimming pools in the sample (shown in “green”). The buildings are identified as #2, #7, #8, #9, and #10.

Analysis of the preliminary sample data associated with the indoor swimming pools indicates the following general trends and comparison to the Master Study:

• Physical Deterioration (FCI/EFCI): The pool buildings in the Validation Sample cover a wide range of life cycle stages (Stage 2, 3 and 4) and the condition of the pools varies across this classification. The condition pattern is generally consistent with the theoretical model in the Master Study and the data is considered adequate for preliminary extrapolation purposes.

• Functional Obsolescence (FNI): Indoor swimming pools are deemed to be highly susceptible to obsolescence factors associated with recreation programming requirements. When these factors are taken into consideration, the indoor pools in the Validation Sample exhibited a Functional Needs Index (FNI) of approximately 47.5%.

Section 1


The table below summarizes some of the data associated with the indoor swimming pools in the Validation Sample.

Validation SampleBuildings in Portfolio 103 Indoor Swimming PoolsBuildings in Sample 5 (4.85%)Age and Size AttributesAvg. Age in Portfolio 1980 (26 yrs) – Stage 4Avg. Age in Sample 1980 (26 yrs) – Stage 4Avg. Size in Sample 19,500 SFPhysical�Condition�Attributes�of�SampleAvg. Reproduction Cost $3,3 MillionAvg. FCI (“catch-up”) 32.5 % of reproduction costAvg. EFCI (“keep up”) 38.3 % of reproduction costObsolescence�Attributes�of�Sample“S” Curve points

0% obsolescence at 0 years50% obsolescence at 25 years (point of inflection) 98% obsolescence at 50 years

Delta/Amplitude 100% of reproduction costAvg. FNI (“get ahead”) 47.5% of reproduction cost

Detailed data tables regarding the sample of indoor swimming pools are included in another section of the report.

1.12�Outdoor�Swimming�PoolsThe Validation Sample did not include any outdoor swimming pools and therefore there is no analysis available at this time. The BCRPA will give consideration to inclusion of a representative sample of outdoor pools in a subsequent phase of the Master Study.

Section 1


1.13�Seniors�CentresThe figure below indicates the age and condition distribution of the two in-scope seniors centres (shown in “orange”). The affected buildings are identified on the matrix as #6 and #9.

Analysis of the sample data associated with the seniors indicates the following general trends:

• Physical Deterioration (FCI & EFCI): There are an inadequate number of senior’s centres in the Validation Sample to identify any meaningful patterns in the data and make defensible extrapolations to the statistical population. Preliminary analysis of the two sample buildings suggests that the condition of the seniors centres is consistent with their age and do follow the patterns of the theoretical life cycle model contemplated in the Master Study.

• Functional Obsolescence (FNI): Seniors centres are deemed to exhibit low obsolescence factors associated with changes to recreation programming requirements. Preliminary analysis suggests the average FNI for the senior’s centres is approximately 24.7% of building reproduction cost.

Section 1


Some of the data associated with senior centres in the Validation Sample is summarized in the following table.

Validation SampleBuildings in Portfolio 73 Seniors CentresBuildings in Sample 2 (2.7%)Age and Size AttributesAvg. Age in Portfolio 1977 (31 yrs) – Stage 4Avg. Age in Sample 1991 (17 yrs) – Stage 3Avg. Size in Sample 7,000 SFPhysical�Condition�Attributes�of�SampleAvg. Reproduction Cost $ 1,64 Million eachAvg. FCI (“catch-up”) 28.1% of reproduction costAvg. EFCI (“keep up”) 36.9 % of reproduction costObsolescence�Attributes�of�Sample“S” Curve points 0% obsolescence at 1 year

50% obsolescence at 30 years (point of inflection) 98% obsolescence at 60 years


Detailed data tables regarding the senior’s centres are included in other reports.

Section 1


1.14 Youth CentresThe figure below indicates the age and condition distribution of the three in-scope youth centres (shown in “blue”). The affected buildings are #5, #9 and #10.

Analysis of the sample data associated with the youth indicates the following general trends:

• Physical Deterioration: Although the sample size for the youth centres is relatively low (approximately 3.4%), it is apparent, on the existing data, that the condition of the youth centres worsen with age.

• Functional Obsolescence: Youth centres are deemed to follow similar obsolescence patterns as those associated with community centres. It has been established that the average Facility Needs Index (FNI) for the three youth centres is approximately 21.2%. This figure is unusually high and is accounted for by the fact that the youth centres often represent a small portion of the net floor area of a community centre. Since the floor area of the youth centre determines the building reproduction cost for the youth centre, the denominator in the youth centre calculation is lower than the most of the other eight building types.

Section 1


The Validation Team noted that some of the facilities in the sample contained youth centres, which were not reflected in the BCRPA database. The following table summarizes some of the data associated with youth centres in the Validation Sample.

Validation SampleBuildings in Portfolio 69 Youth CentresBuildings in Sample 3 (4.3%)Age and Size AttributesAvg. Age in Portfolio 1986 (22 yrs) – Stage 3Avg. Age in Sample 1985 (23 yrs) – Stage 3Avg. Size in Sample 4,000 SFPhysical�Condition�Attributes�of�SampleAvg. Reproduction Cost $ 730,000Avg. FCI (“catch-up”) 7.5 % of reproduction costAvg. EFCI (“keep up”) 12.0 % of reproduction costObsolescence�Attributes�of�Sample“S” Curve points 0% obsolescence at 1 year

50% obsolescence at 30 years(point of inflection)98% obsolescence at 60 years


Detailed data tables regarding the youth centres are included in other reports.

Section 1


1.15�Community�HallsSince the Validation Sample contained only one community hall, there is inadequate data, at this juncture, to identify any meaningful patterns in the data and make defensible analysis. In the interim, it is noted that the single community hall exhibited an FCI of 13.3%, which is at the low end of the”poor” condition range.

Validation SampleBuildings in Portfolio 114 Community HallsBuildings in Sample 1 (0.9%)Age and Size AttributesAvg. Age in Portfolio 1966 (42 yrs) – Stage 5Avg. Age in Sample 1974 (34 yrs) – Stage 4Avg. Size in Sample 1,500 SFPhysical�Condition�Attributes�of�SampleAvg. Reproduction Cost $ 300,000Avg. FCI (“catch-up”) 13.3 % of reproduction costAvg. EFCI (“keep up”) 26.7 % of reproduction costObsolescence�Attributes�of�Sample“S” Curve points 0% obsolescence at 1 year



Detailed data tables on the community halls are included in the other reports.

Section 1


1.16 Curling FacilitiesDue to the fact that the Validation Sample was limited to one curling facility, it is not possible at this juncture to provide any analysis that could assist in making defensible extrapolations about the physical deterioration and functional obsolescence of other curling facilities in the portfolio. On an interim basis, the single curling facility exhibited an FCI of 17%, which is deemed as relatively “poor” condition.

Validation SampleBuildings in Portfolio 78 Curling FacilitiesBuildings in Sample 1 (1.28%)Age and Size AttributesAvg. Age in Portfolio 1970 (38 yrs) – Stage 5Avg. Age in Sample 1974 (34 yrs) – Stage 4Avg. Size in Sample 25,000 SFPhysical�Condition�Attributes�of�SampleAvg. Reproduction Cost $3 MillionAvg. FCI (“catch-up”) 17.0% of reproduction costAvg. EFCI (“keep up”) 21.0 % of reproduction costObsolescence�Attributes�of�SampleObsolescence thresholds Temporarily mapped to ice arena

thresholdsDelta/Amplitude 100% of reproduction costAvg. FNI (“get ahead”) 27.3% of reproduction cost

Additional data tables regarding the curling facilities are included in other reports.

1.17 Extrapolation RecommendationsThe first table below indicates which of the empirical data in the Validation Sample, for each of the eight building types, is considered ready for extrapolation to the statistical population.

Building�TypeSample

sizeData

qualityReadiness�for�

extrapolation trendingCommunity Centres 9.00% “Good” Data adequateIndoor pools 4.85% “Fair” Data not readyIce Arenas 1.00% “Poor” Data not readyYouth Centres 4.30% “Poor” Data not readySeniors Centres 2.70% “Poor” Data not readyCommunity halls 0.90% “Poor” Data not readyCurling facilities 1.28% “Poor” Data not readyOutdoor pools 0.00% n/a Data not ready

Section 1


The Validation Study will require the collection of additional data to enable extrapolations of the data from the Validation Sample to each of the eight building types.

1.18��Interim�Re-Investment�FindingsThe following table provides a summary of the estimated re-investment costs for the thirty-four buildings in the Validation Sample.

Cost CategoryAverage per building in Phase IV Validation Sample

Total�for�all�buildings in Phase IV Validation Sample

“Catch-up” Cost Estimate (FCI)

$700,000 $26,000,000

“Keep-up” Cost Estimate (EFCI)

$400,000 $15,000,000

“Get-ahead” Cost Estimate (FNI)

$1,500,000 $57,000,000

Totals $2,500,000 $98,000,000

The next table compares the interim findings of the Validation Study with the theoretical values in the Master Study.

Cost Category“Theoretical”�data�in�Master Study

“Empirical”�data�in�Phase�IV Validation Study

Totals $139�Million $98�Million

Based on the preliminary findings of the Validation Study, the re-capitalization estimate is in the order of $98 Million for the 16 facilities in the Validation Sample. The preliminary data in the Master Study amounts to a re-capitalization estimate in the order of $139 Million. The variance of approximately $40 Million can be accounted for by the different methodologies in the two studies and the need for further refinement of the obsolescence multipliers.

Section 1

Contents




Appendices


Definitions

In order to convey certain concepts and relationships, this report makes use of a variety of terms and definitions. Listed below are some of the more common terms.

Asset Means an integrated assembly of components within one of the Systems of a Building, which fit together and interact to form a unit.

Bottom-up�Assessment Means the method of collecting Condition Data on each Asset (ie., micro level) and provides line-item lists of Concerns and Projected Concerns for each Asset.

Building Means a structure that functions as a single unit, which may be part of a Facility.

Catch-up�Costs Means the costs associated with the accumulated backlog of deferred maintenance. The Facility Condition Index (FCI) measures catch up costs.

Concerns Means an issue or problem with a System or Asset requiring maintenance, repair, or replacement.

Condition Means the state of Physical Deterioration of a System or Asset associated with a Building.

Denominator Means the bottom number of a fraction used to derive an Index. Building Reproduction Cost is the denominator of the FCI, EFCI and FNI formulas.

Section�2


EFCI See: Extended Facility Condition Index.

Empirical Data Means data that is based on visual observation that is quantifiable and measurable.

Extended Facility Condition Index (EFCI)

Means the measure of the physical health of a Facility, derived from the cost of the Concerns and Projected Concerns for a given Facility compared to the total reproduction value of the Facility.

Extrapolation Means the estimation of the value of a variable outside its observed range. That is, the Physical Condition and/or Functional Obsolescence of the Statistical Population of Buildings as a result of the findings of the Phase-IV Validation Sample.

Facility Means one or more Buildings, or any other permanent structures, on or related to a Site.

Facility Condition Index (FCI)

Means the measure of the physical health of a Facility, derived from the cost of the Concerns for a given Facility compared to the total reproduction value of the Facility.

Facility Needs Index (FNI) Means the measure of the physical health and functional health of a Facility, derived from the cost of the Concerns, Projected Concerns and functional obsolescence multipliers compared to the total reproduction value of the Facility.

FCI See Facility Condition Index.

FNI See Facility Needs Index.

Functional Obsolescence Means the loss in qualitative and quantitative utility of the Buildings and their interior Spaces as a result of factors such as recreation programming changes, new sports regulations, and community growth.

Section 2


Get Ahead Costs Means the costs associated with Adaptation and arresting all the forces of retirements associated with Functional Obsolescence.

Index Means a numerical scale used to compare variables with one another. The Phase-IV Validation Study uses three indexes: Facility Condition Index (FCI), Extended Facility Condition Index (EFCI) and Facility Needs Index (FNI).

In-Scope Means the Buildings and Facilities in the Phase-IV Validation Sample.

Keep-Up�Costs Means the projected Renewal costs over the next five years. Keep-up Costs are reflected in the Extended Facility Condition Index (EFCI).

Master Study Means the Recreation Facilities Assessment Study carried out by Hughes Condon Marler Architects and BCRPA, comprising four phases during the period 2003 through 2009.

Matrix Means a data array of two dimensions. For example, Condition of a Building represented on the horizontal axis and the age of buildings represented on the vertical axis.

Numerator Means the top number of a fraction used to derive an Index. Concerns, Renewals and Obsolescence are used as numerators to derive the FCI, EFCI and FNI>

Obsolescence Means the loss in the utility of an Asset, System or Building due to factors other than Physical Deterioration, such as changes in technology, changes in regulations, changes in codes and standards. See: Functional Obsolescence.

Section 2


Phase-IV�Validation�Sample Means the 16 in-scope recreation facilities located in the Lower Mainland Region.

Phase-IV�Validation�Study Means the methodology, data, findings and analysis of the assessments carried out at the Phase IV Validation Sample.

Physical Deterioration Means the degradation of the Building and its Assets as a result of the action of the elements, wear & tear, and other environmental factors.

Portfolio Means the 855 recreation buildings that are referenced in the Master Study.

Projected Concerns Means an issue or problem with a System or Asset that is expected to arise over the next five years based on the Condition or life expectancy of the Asset.

Region Means a geographical sub-set of the Portfolio.

Renewal Means the replacement of an Asset as it reaches the end of its Service Life.

Replacement Cost Means the amount that is required to reproduce a building based on current codes and standards, in accordance with current market prices.

Reproduction Cost Means the amount that is required to reproduce a Building in like kind and materials in accordance with current market prices for materials, labour and manufactured equipment, contractor’s overhead, profit and fees.

Service�Life Means the period of time over which an Asset provides adequate physical performance. Functional performance is not contemplated in service life.

Section 2


System Means a group of Assets that perform a similar function. For example, the roofs, walls and windows are part of the enclosure system.

Theoretical�Data Means Data based on rational principles of logic and/or generated from statistical models that fit curves to existing Data.

Tombstone�Data Means the descriptive data contained in the Master Study database administered by BCRPA.

Top-Down�Assessment Means the method of collecting Condition Data by approaching the Building at the system-level and providing general (macro) statements about the Concerns and Projected Concerns associated with each System.

Validation Means confirmation that an assumption is correct or erroneous.

Section 2

Contents




Appendices


Methodology

The Validation Study comprised two distinct, but closely interrelated, methodologies that were together intended to quantify the “physical deterioration” and “functional obsolescence” of the in-scope recreation facilities.

3.1�“Condition”�&�“Obsolescence”The methodology to determine “physical condition” was based, in part, on a study carried out by the Alberta Parks & Recreation Association in 2006.

Several additional features were added to the methodology to enable a clearer distinction, and thereby a more refined analysis, of “physical condition” factors and “obsolescence” factors in the forces of retirement acting upon recreation facilities. This refined analysis provided for a more defensible methodology.

The preliminary thresholds and delta values for the functional obsolescence calculations were developed as a result of a collaborative effort between consultants to the project and the Advisory Task Group.

Section�3


Section 3


3.2�Determine�Sample�for�AssessmentOf the approximate eight hundred and fifty five (855) recreation buildings contemplated in Phase I, II, III and IV of the Master Study, sixteen facilities (1.87%) were selected by the British Columbia Recreation & Parks Association (BCRPA) for data validation. The sample of sixteen facilities was structured in order to provide a representative cross-section of community centres with varying age and size attributes. It is understood that the size of the sample may be expanded in a subsequent assessment, which is outside the scope of the Validation Study.

The facilities in the current sample were geographically concentrated in the Lower mainland region, which are represented graphically in the figure below.

3.3�Determine�Scope�of�AssessmentsThe consulting team was engaged to review the “physical condition” of the sample recreation buildings and to collaborate on the development of a method to quantity the “functional obsolescence” of the validation sample.

The sitework around the buildings, such as parks and trails, was excluded from the current scope of work. The relationships between the buildings and their sites, and the condition of the latter, are an important variable that needs to be considered for future phases of the Master Study. The figure below provides an example of the relationship between the building and the surrounding site at one of the sample facilities.

Section 3


Within each of the sixteen facilities in the validation sample, the consulting team reviewed the condition of the seven primary physical systems, which are all interact with one another, as conceptually illustrates in the next figure.

The findings and recommendations for each system are provided in the facility detail reports.

Section 3


3.4�Review�Tombstone�Data�The consulting team reviewed the results of the work done during the earlier phases of the Master Study, which included reports prepared and tombstone data captured in the BCRPA database. The tombstone data included information on the location, size and use of the facilities, which had been provided by the facility managers but not verified.

3.5�Establish�Structure�of�Validation�DataIn addition to the two “types” of data (ie., empirical and theoretical), the figure below illustrates the relationship between different “levels” of data that correspond to the hierarchy of space extending from the provincial portfolio to the individual systems within the sample buildings.

Listed below are some definitions used in the Validation Study to apply to the hierarchy of data:

•� Portfolio. A group of buildings that are owned, operated, administered, and/or managed by a single entity, which may be located in one or more geographical regions. All the buildings in the BCRPA database comprise the “portfolio”.

• Region. A geographical sub-set of the portfolio. The Validation Study was focused on the Lower Mainland Region, specifically the portion of the Region between Hope (to the East) and Squamish (to the Northwest).

• Facility. A group of buildings, which are owned, operated and managed by a single entity. The sixteen locations in the validation sample are each facilities.

• Building. A structure that functions as a single unit. Some of the sixteen facilities in the Validation Sample contained multiple buildings and are classified as mixed-use sportsplex.

Section 3


• System. A group of physical components that perform a similar function. For example, the roofs, walls and windows are each assets that separate the exterior environment from the interior of the building and are part of the enclosure system.

• Assets. An integrated assembly of components within one of the systems of a building, which fit together and interacts to form a unit. For example: the roof (and all its associated elements) is an asset of the enclosure system. A ‘boiler’ is an asset of the mechanical system.

The hierarchy of data was represented by the series of reports in the Validation Study:

• Portfolio�Reports.�These reports provide aggregate data related to all the facilities in the Validation Sample.

• Facility Reports. These reports pertain specifically to each facility in the Validation Sample.

Copies of the series of reports are included in subsequent sections.

3.6�Determine�Space-Use�ClassificationsThe primary sources for data on the building space use classifications for each of the buildings in the validation sample are listed below:

• The tombstone data in the BCRPA database.

• Site photographs taken by the validation team.

• Drawings provided by each facility (where available).

• Facility literature and operations.

The images below illustrate the wide range of interior space uses that were identified at the sample of facilities.

Gymnasiums Multi-purpose rooms

Section 3


The consulting team encountered some problems assigning the spaces at some of the facilities, particularly at multiplexes. These problems were compounded in cases where space uses have changed over time and in situations where spaces and amenities have been left dormant.

Some questions for consideration in the future refinement of the validation data are: What portion of change rooms should be assigned to pools and/or fitness room in multiplexes; How should administration spaces be assigned to the various occupancies in multiplexes. These questions are necessary to determine the net floor areas to be calculated for each building type within the mixed-use facilities.

3.7�Determine�Age�of�Each�FacilityThe next stage in the methodology was to determine the date of construction of each building and the dates of subsequent renovations and expansions. The primary methods for collecting this type of data were:

• Drawings made available to the team.

• Age plaques mounted on the walls within some of the facilities.

• The tombstone data in the BCRPA database.

• Discussions with facility staff (where available).

• Equipment nameplates mounted onto some of the mechanical components.

Some of the problems that were encountered when trying to establish the age of facilities, buildings, and portions of buildings are summarized below:

• Poor historical records at some of the facilities.

• Staff without a long history with the facility.

• Multiple renovations at some facilities.

• Multiple integrated buildings in one facility.

A table summarizing the age of each building is included in the detail reports. The executive summary provides information on the average age of the buildings in the sample and within each building category.

Ice Rinks Pools

Section 3


3.8�Determine�Size�of�Each�FacilityThe primary methods for determining the size of each building are summarized below:

• Drawings (where available).

• The tombstone data in the existing BCRPA database.

• Information provided by facility staff.

• Takeoffs from fire annunciator panel diagrams.

Some of the problems that were encountered when trying to establish the size of facilities, buildings, and portions of buildings are summarized below:

• Insufficient drawings at some facilities.

• Space allocation of common areas (such as washrooms) to different parts of the facility.

A table summarizing the size of each building is included in the detail reports, including the average size, smallest building and largest building.

3.9�Review�Theoretical�DataRecognizing that the Validation Study was intended to confirm the theoretical assumptions in earlier phases of the Master Study, the team structured the validation reports so that all empirical data was recorded beside the theoretical data. The distinction between these two classes of data has been identified as follows:

• Empirical Data. This includes data that is based on visual observations that are quantifiable and measurable, subject to professional judgement.

• Theoretical�Data.�This includes data based on rational principles and/or generated from statistical models that fit curves to existing data.

The validation reports enabled direct comparisons to determine the level of variance between the “theoretical” data from the earlier phases of the Master Study and the “empirical” data collected on site during the Validation Study.

Section 3


3.10�Collect�Site�Validation�DataIn order to validate the theoretical life and condition data in the Master Study, the consulting team utilized the following techniques for collecting data on each of the buildings in the Validation Sample:

• Site visits, excluding confined spaces and areas requiring fall protection equipment.

• Facility manager interviews, where staff was available.

• Drawing reviews, where documents were available.

The following techniques were not used: survey questionnaires; service contractor interviews; calculations; re-commissioning tests, equipment dismantling and destructive testing.

Some of the problems that were encountered by the team when collecting data are summarized below:

• Restricted access to certain rooms during certain programs.

• Lack of drawings at many of the facilities.

• Lack of available knowledgeable staff with a history of the facility.

• Inaccessible roof areas in some locations.

• Un-accessed confined spaces, such as crawl spaces and other interstitial spaces.

In order to substantiate the findings and recommendations, several photographs were taken of the condition observations at each facility. The figure below includes a few samples of deficiencies in the interior finishes system.

Examples of the deficiency photographs taken at the in-scope facilities are included in one of the appendices.

Section 3


3.11�Assign�System�Condition�RankingsOnce the Validation team had collected the empirical condition data, it was necessary to assign condition rankings to each system within the in-scope buildings of the Validation Sample. The figure below illustrates the ranking system developed by the Alberta Parks and Recreation Association (APRA).

1. Critical: Unsafe�condition.�High�risk�of�injury�or�critical�system�failure.

2.�Poor: Does�not�meet�requirements.�Has�significant�deficiencies�and�may�have�operating�/�maintenance costs.

3.�Marginal: Meets minimum requirements, but has significant�deficiencies.

4. Acceptable: Meets present requirements, with minor deficiencies.�Average�maintenance�/�operating�costs.

5.�Good: Meets�present�requirements.�No�significant�deficiencies.

6. Excellent: Meets�present�and�foreseeable�future�requirements.

7. Pending: Not�applicable.�Could�be�considered�for�future�upgrading or other discretionary upgrading items.

3.12�Determine�Reinvestment�CategoriesOnce the data had been collected on the condition of each of the in-scope facilities, the validation team organized the condition data into the following three broad reinvestment categories:

• “Catch-up”�Costs. This includes the accumulated backlog of deferred work. Catch-up costs are recorded in the Facility Condition Index (FCI). Catch-up cost estimates are based on empirical data.

• “Keep-up”�Costs. This includes renewal projects forecast over the next five years. Keep up costs are recorded in the Extended Facility Condition Index (EFCI). Keep-up cost estimates are based on empirical data.

• “Get-ahead”�Costs. This includes an allowance for the functional obsolescence of the facility. These costs are included in the Facility Needs Index (FNI). Get ahead cost estimates are based primarily on theoretical data.

Section 3


This refinement of the re-investment costs into three distinct categories helped the team pursue the following objectives.

• A strict interpretation of the Facility Condition Index (FCI) methodology does not include forecast renewal costs or functional obsolescence. Based on the thresholds that have been developed and tested on thousands of facility condition assessments conducted in North America since the early 1990s when the FCI was first introduced, an index that blends different cost categories cannot be used as a standard measure of condition.

• Based on past experience, the validation team has learned that aggregate re-investment cost estimates are more meaningful to the stakeholders when they are classified into different clearly defined categories (ie., catch-up cost, keep-up costs and get-ahead costs).

• A clearly itemized facility re-investment estimate is more defensible than a blended estimate that cannot be decomposed into its constituent parts.

• It is important to disclose that catch-up cost estimates and keep-up cost estimates are derived primarily from empirical data, whereas the get-ahead cost estimates are based in large-part on theoretical data.

The formulas for calculating each of the three reinvestment cost categories are included in the next section.

3.13�Calculate�Physical�Condition�IndicesThe figure below summarizes the formulas that correspond with each the three facility condition indices that were used in the Validation Study.

Section 3


Each of the three equations is comprised of the following two essential elements:

•� Denominator. This is the reproduction cost for each building. The common thread in all three equations is the “reproduction” value of the buildings. The “reproduction” value was determined through discussions with the facility representatives who extracted this from the certificates of all property insurance for each facility and/or buildings within the facilities.

•� Numerator. This is the value of the “catch up”, “keep up” and/or “get ahead” cost estimates for each building. The numerators were established through a top-down method of collecting data. Further discussion on the mathematical equations is included in the appendices to this report.

The images below includes screen shots of the reports that display the FCI, EFCI and FNI.

At this juncture, it is important to note that the re-capitalization estimates in the Master Study are based on building “replacement” cost estimates, whereas the estimates in the Validation Study are based on building “reproduction” cost. The figure below summarizes the differences between the “replacement” and “reproduction” cost methods.

Section 3


In order to preserve the integrity of the theoretical data, the Validation team structured all reports so that the building “reproduction” cost estimates and building “replacement” cost estimates are recorded side-by-side for comparison purposes.

3.14�Determine�appropriate�Role�of�Functional�Obso-lescence in Reinvestment CalculationsTo underscore the importance of functional obsolescence in planning for the service life of buildings, we will take this opportunity to make reference to a pertinent study carried out in 2006 on the reasons for the demolition of non-residential buildings. Some of the results of that study are reflected the following pie chart, which graphically illustrates the distribution of reasons for demolition of the buildings in that research project.

Section 3


It is useful to note that physical condition (“red” segment of pie) and obsolescence (“green” segment of pie) represent significant controllable factors in the life of non-residential buildings. Uncontrollable factors include things such as area redevelopment, fire damage, and changing land values.

Functional obsolescence contemplates the following types of changes and adaptations that need to be accommodated over the life of a recreation facility:

• Changes to recreational programming requirements.

• Changes in sports regulations, such as the height of gym ceilings, the width of pool decks, and types of flooring in gymnasiums.

• Changes in the demographics within the local community.

• Development (or lack of development) of other complementary facilities in the same catchment area.

Unlike the empirical condition data in the FCI and EFCI methodologies, the functional obsolescence data required for the FNI is subjective and not readily quantifiable. The challenge for the Validation Team has been the selection of a method to quantify functional obsolescence.

3.15�Quantify�Functional�ObsolescenceIn order to quantify the impact of functional obsolescence as one of the forces of retirement acting upon the life of recreational facilities, a series of preliminary functional obsolescence curves were developed for discussion with the Advisory Task Group.

The figure below conceptually illustrates the impact of functional obsolescence over the life of a recreation building.

Section 3


The “S” curve contains two components that provide an index to measure of the degree of functional obsolescence at different times over the life of a building.

• Shape�of�the�Curve. The curve is comprised of two parts: a) exponential and b) inverse exponential. The transition between the two parts occurs at the “point of inflection”. In the preceding figure the point of inflection occurs at 25 years and 50% of the amplitude. The Validation team met with the Task Group to review the points of inflection for different recreation building types that have been used in the Validation Study.

• Amplitude�of�the�Curve. In the preceding figure, the amplitude of the “S” curve is one-times the Reproduction Cost of the building. This amplitude was selected since it takes into consideration the original intent of the building and allows for consistent comparison with the physical condition indices. After the initial report had been developed, the Validation team met with the Task Group to refine the amplitudes.

The figure below provides a conceptual illustration of three different types of “S” curves corresponding with different types of buildings. The shape of each “S” curve is determined by the characteristics of the different types of building and the five life cycle stages contemplated in the Master Study.

Due to their unique environments, the functional requirements of pools and arenas change at a more rapid rate than other building types, such as community centres, youth centres and seniors centres.

The next figure contains an example of a functional obsolescence curve for indoor swimming pools relative to four buildings of different ages. The “red” portion of the stacked bar chart represents the FCI (catch-up money) for each building, the “yellow” portion is the EFCI (keep up money) for each building and the “green” portion of the stacked bar chart is the FNI, functional obsolescence (get-ahead money).

Section 3


The following figure provides four possible scenarios as follows:

• Scenario 1: 5�Year�old�Building. The building is in poor physical condition but meets its functional needs. It is a good candidate for restoration, ongoing maintenance and planned renewals.

• Scenario�2:�17-Year�old�Building. The building is in relatively good condition with some minor functional obsolescence. It is a good candidate for ongoing maintenance and planned renewals.

• Scenario�3: 35-Year�old�Building. The building is in poor physical condition and exhibits high functional obsolescence. It may be considered a candidate for replacement insofar as a cost-benefit analysis may determine that the facility owners would receive a greater return on investment to rebuild rather than continue to allocate capital to the building.

• Scenario�4:�42-Year�Old�Building. This building is in good physical condition but exhibits high functional obsolescence. From a physical condition perspective, the building requires routine maintenance and renewals. However, since it is functionally obsolete, the facility owners are tasked with having to make a difficult decision to either: a) expand the facility; and/or b) construct another facility; and/or c) make other functional adaptations to the interior spaces and equipment.

Once the functional obsolescence values had been determined through “S” curves for each building type and life cycle stage, the Functional Needs Index (FNI) was derived for each building in the Validation Sample.

Section 3


3.16�Normalize�the�Empirical�DataSince the Validation Sample was limited to facilities that are located in a small geographical region, normalization was not required to account for city factors across the Province.

3.17�Reconcile�Theoretical�&�Empirical�DataWhen comparing the “empirical” data from the Validation Sample to the “theoretical” data in the Master Study it is important to first normalize the data so that proper comparisons can be made. Comparisons need to be made on the following variables:

• Square foot unit rates for building “replacement” and building “reproduction” cost

• Facility Needs Index (FNI) for each of the five life stages of the buildings.

The following figure includes a summary of some of the comparison values and the relative merits of the methodology in the Master Study and the methodology in the Validation Study.

The executive summary contains a number of reports that compare the data from the Master Study and the Validation Study. While it has been determined that both sets of data do follow similar patterns, the scales do not currently match – that is, the “empirical” data has resulted in reinvestment estimates that are lower than the “theoretical” data. Further discussion on the reconciliation of the two sets of data is included in the executive summary.

Section 3


3.18�Generate�ReportsThe series of reports in the Validation Study are sorted into the following three groups:

• Sorted by Building Name. These report sorts all the Validation data by the name of each building. To preserve the anonymity of the facilities, these reports are utilized for in-house analysis purposes and not for public distribution.

• Sorted�by�Building�Type.�The Master Study identified eight types of recreation buildings: indoor pools, ice arenas, seniors centres, youth centres, community centres, community halls, outdoor pools, and curling facilities. Several reports filter the data according to this classification.

• Sorted by Building Age Classes. The Validation Study mapped each of the eight types of facilities against the five life-cycle stages contemplated in the Master Study.

All the data from the Validation Study was captured in a master spreadsheet that recorded twenty-two columns of data for each of the in-scope facilities in the Validation Sample.

Section 3


The Validation Study also included a series of data distribution charts to record the data beside each facility. Inserted below is an example of one of the data distribution reports.

Copies of the portfolio reports are included in the executive summary.

3.19�Future�Analysis�OpportunitiesConsideration should be given to possible future expansion of the validation sample so that more accurate extrapolations can be made for the benefit of the Master Study. This is particularly important for those types of buildings that were under-represented in the Validation Sample, such as outdoor pools, community halls, senior’s centres, and youth centres.

Section 3

Contents




Appendices


Appendices

BCRPA Validation Audit Community Recreation Facilities Assessment Study A-1

Portfolio�Executive�Summary

Appendix 1


M R

D U

Appendix 1


Appendix 1


M R

D U

Appendix 1


Appendix 1


Data Distributions

Appendix�2

A03

Section B

: Data D

istributionsPhase IV Validation S

ample: Com

munity Centres, Low

er Mainland, B

ritish Columbia

1. Building Age Distributions

2. "Catch-up" Cost Esimates (FCI)

3. "Keep-up" Cost Estimates (EFCI)

4. "Get-Ahead" Cost Estimates (FNI)


M R

D U

Appendix 2


Appendix 2